395 So. 2d 310 - Philippe v. Browning Arms Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 403 So. 2d 26 - DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. (1981), 574 So. 2d 344 - Hobgood v. Aucoin (1990)
8 federal appellate · 98 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY · Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation · Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. · 298 So. 2d 840 - Rey v. Cuccia · Viator v. Gilbert
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[14] There is no compelling reason to require a person injured by a defective product he has purchased to proceed either in contract or in tort. The seller's (manufacturer's) act of delivering a defective thing, when he knows of the defect, gives rise to delictual, as well as contractual, liability. (citations omitted) "[15, 16] We conclude that the right and the extent of recovery by the purchaser of a thing against the seller or manufacturer is governed by the codal articles providing for responsibility in the seller-purchaser relationship, as applied through C.C. art. 2315."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“impairment of earning capacity cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty, and sound judicial discretion must be exercised after all proper considerations are weighed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"The manufacturer of products introduced into commerce has the obligation to produce a product which is reasonably safe for its intended use. Weber v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co., 259 La. 599 , 250 So.2d 754 (1971). Breach of this obligation gives rise to a cause of action in favor of the purchaser of the product not only to demand the return of the purchase price, but also, because the manufacturer is presumed to know of defects in its products, to demand all damages caused by the defect and reasonable attorney's fees. C.C. art. 2545; Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So.2d 840 (La.1974).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.